Re: GML or WKT in GeoSPARQL

FWIW,
Nature and energy minimums apparently do not use regular planar hexagons.
n-cyclohexane (boat and chair), benzene, Dewar benzene, prismane, etc. all have their gimmicks.
The only pattern there is complexity without simplicity.  "strange round errors",
 "multisurface", "errors with simple geometries" might be the slightly not right visualization of using 
hexagons to approximate Great Circle Navigation.
--Gannon
 




________________________________
 From: John Goodwin <John.Goodwin@ordnancesurvey.co.uk>
To: Frans Knibbe | Geodan <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>; "public-locadd@w3.org" <public-locadd@w3.org> 
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 4:23 AM
Subject: RE: GML or WKT in GeoSPARQL
 


 
Hi Frans,
 
The Ordnance Survey linked data (which doesn’t currently use GeoSPARQL, but uses a very similar ontology made in house – we will migrate over time) opted for GML. Our decision was largely because it is the ‘format of choice’ for many of our main products and also favoured by INSPIRE.
 
Interesting I had an issue with ogr2ogr when converting a shape file to GML that I couldn’t control the decimal places and there were all sort of strange round errors occurring (in EPSG:27700). 
 
With POSTGIS I had trouble loading a shape file that contained mixed geometry types. Either post gis loaded everything as multisurface or threw an error if I tried to load the simple geometries. I opted for FME follow by some XSL in the end. 
 
Another option – and I *think* it’s allowed by GeoSPARQL is GeoJSON.
 
John
 
Dr John Goodwin
Principal Scientist
Research, Ordnance Survey 
Adanac Drive, SOUTHAMPTON, United Kingdom, SO16 0AS 
Phone: +44 (0) 23 8005 5761 
www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk | john.goodwin@ordnancesurvey.co.uk 
Please consider your environmental responsibility before printing this email.
 
From:Frans Knibbe | Geodan [mailto:frans.knibbe@geodan.nl] 
Sent: 11 April 2013 10:07
To: public-locadd@w3.org
Subject: GML or WKT in GeoSPARQL
 
Hello,

The GeoSPARQL standard allows for two ways of representing geometry: GML or WKT. I have always thought WKT to be the preferred format, because of its greater simplicity and its wider software support. But now I have discovered a drawback of WKT: It does not
 seem possible to control coordinate precision when transforming geometry to WKT in PostGIS. Unlike the function ST_AsGML(), the PostGIS function ST_AsText() does not have a parameter maxdecimaldigits. This can cause data to be bloated as well as erroneous.

What do you think?
Would it make sense to investigate the pros and cons of WKT and GML for serialisation of geometry in this group?

Regards,
Frans
-- 
--------------------------------------
Geodan
President Kennedylaan 1
1079 MB Amsterdam (NL)

T +31 (0)20 - 5711 347
E frans.knibbe@geodan.nl 
www.geodan.nl | disclaimer
--------------------------------------
This email is only intended for the person to whom it is addressed and may contain confidential information. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this email which must not be copied, distributed or disclosed to any other person. Unless stated otherwise, the contents of this email are personal to the writer and do not represent the official view of Ordnance Survey. Nor can any contract be formed on Ordnance Survey's behalf via email. We reserve the right to monitor emails and attachments without prior notice. Thank you for your cooperation. Ordnance Survey
Adanac Drive
Southampton SO16 0AS
Tel: 08456 050505
http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk